W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2002

Re: LANG: Moving issues 5.6 and 5.14 forward

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:51:36 -0400
Message-ID: <3D932D08.891C7BC7@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
CC: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Massimo Marchiori wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: heflin@EECS.Lehigh.EDU [mailto:heflin@EECS.Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of Jeff Heflin
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:50 PM
> > To: Massimo Marchiori
> > Cc: WebOnt
> > Subject: Re: LANG: Moving issues 5.6 and 5.14 forward
> >
> >
> > Massimo Marchiori wrote:
> > >

[snip]

> >
> > For reasons I've mentioned elsewhere, I cannot live with the XInclude
> > solution. I have also heard a few others say this solution is
> > unacceptable.
> As far as I remember, Raphael replied to both your and Jim's problems. Did I miss something?
> This, not to say I second entirely the xinclude (because, yes, it's outside RDF....).

No, my concerns in [1] have not been addressed by XInclude proposal.

> Now, to be more constructive (and, all based on the intuitive defs we have for import and versioning), some quick solutions to put
> everything "in RDF":
> a) versioning: all the current problems with putting versioning in RDF is because of the heritage of DAML+OIL, that defines an
> ontology in a "classic" file-based way. Defining ontologies in less orthodox ways, like using URIspaces (simple URI matching) might
> elegantly solve this.

That method does not work because an ontology may make statements about
the URIspaces from another ontology (this is a consequence of the
principle of "being able to say anything about anything.") Therefore the
URIspace method would not properly define the ontology.

> b) import: we can just use a triple
> (bnode) -- rdfs:seeAlso --> (URI)
> Depending on a precise def of import, we might want to strengthen this using a new rdf:import or the like, that gives the import an
> rfc2119-SHOULD state (processors should fetch the RDF content at the URI and incorporate it (merge the graph)).
> To be picky, note that because of a), we might be more formal and, in our particular OWL case, use things like
> (ontologyURIspace) -- rdfs:seeAlso --> (URI)
> gaining in declarativity (and possibly in OWL performance).

This is not that different from my original proposal [2] which drew
sever criticism from a number of the members of the group. I don't see
how yours would meet their concerns.

Jeff

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0296.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0089.html
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 11:51:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT